Case Summary (G.R. No. 183719)
Key Dates
• 1994 – Petitioner’s purchase of the Manuela Homes lot; no easement annotation then.
• June 1984 – Respondent’s family occupancy in Moonwalk Village.
• February 29, 2000 – Respondent’s adverse claim annotation over 65 sq. m. of petitioner’s land.
• October 11, 2004 – RTC decision.
• May 25, 2007 – Court of Appeals (CA) decision.
• July 14, 2008 – CA denial of reconsideration.
• February 02, 2011 – Supreme Court decision.
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (property rights guarantees)
• Civil Code of the Philippines (Articles 431, 437, 613, 619, 684)
• Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Land Registration, Section 70 on adverse claims)
Factual Background
• Respondent filed an adverse-claim annotation over 65 sq. m. of petitioner’s TCT No. T-36071, not to contest ownership but to protect a legal easement of lateral and subjacent support for his elevated property.
• Petitioner alleged respondent’s claim disrupted her quiet enjoyment and impeded plans to park or excavate on the shared boundary. Construction workers she hired were stopped by respondent’s agents.
RTC Proceedings and Decision
• Petitioner sought damages, injunctive relief, and cancellation of respondent’s annotation.
• The RTC ruled the adverse claim non-registrable under PD 1529 because respondent did not assert ownership; ordered cancellation of the annotation, awarded Php 50,000 moral damages, and dismissed other claims.
Court of Appeals Ruling
• The CA held that while respondent’s adverse-claim form was inappropriate, the annotation could stand as recognition of a lawful easement of lateral and subjacent support over the 65 sq. m. embankment area.
• It reversed the RTC, made the preliminary injunction permanent, and dismissed petitioner’s damage claim.
Issue on Review
Whether (1) an easement of lateral and subjacent support exists over the subject properties and (2) such easement may be validly annotated on the servient tenement’s title.
Legal Principles on Easements of Lateral and Subjacent Support
• Article 437, Civil Code – An owner’s right to excavate is limited by servitudes, special laws, ordinances, aviation safety, and third-party rights.
• Article 684, Civil Code – No proprietor may excavate so as to deprive adjacent land or building of sufficient lateral or subjacent support; disturbing such support imposes liability.
• Nature of Easements – Must arise by law or agreement; courts may declare but not create new servitudes.
Existence of the Easement
• The properties adjoin; the 15-foot elevation difference and pre-existing embankment and riprap show a natural support relationship.
• Petitioner’s excavations threatened respondent’s foundation, satisfying conditions for a legal easement of lateral and subjacent support.
Annotation v
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 183719)
Facts
- Margarita F. Castro is the registered owner of a 130-sq.m. parcel on Garnet Street, Manuela Homes, Pamplona, Las Piñas City, covered by TCT No. T-36071.
- Napoleon A. Monsod owns the adjoining property on Lyra Street, Moonwalk Village, Phase 2, Las Piñas City.
- A concrete fence, approximately two meters high, divides the two subdivisions.
- The rear portion of respondent’s property sits on an elevated plateau about fifteen feet above petitioner’s lot.
Adverse Claim and Barangay Complaint
- On February 29, 2000, respondent caused annotation of an adverse claim over 65 sq.m. of petitioner’s land, without asserting ownership, but to protect his legal easement of lateral and subjacent support.
- Respondent also filed a barangay complaint for malicious mischief and malicious destruction against petitioner.
RTC Proceedings and Injunction
- Petitioner filed a complaint for damages with prayer for temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction before the RTC of Las Piñas City.
- She sought cancellation of the adverse-claim annotation on TCT No. T-36071.
- Prior events included deposits of soil and rocks near petitioner’s front door and a water leak causing slipperiness; excavation works by hired personnel were halted by police officers sent by respondent.
- Petitioner maintained that no easement existed at her 1994 purchase and that respondent never sought permission to use 65 sq.m. of her land.
- She admitted the TCT did not cover the open dead-end portion of Garnet Street.
Respondent’s Position
- Respondent’s family occupied the Moonwalk Village property since June 1984; he purchased it in 1983.
- Originally, land elevations were similar, but in 1985–1986 Pilar Development Corporation excavated Manuela Homes, lowering its level.
- Respondent complained to the deve